Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#121

Post by kaibee »

bheadmaster wrote: post #99
pavel_lishin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree. One of the big sources of income for online artists is commissions of D&D characters and such; AI-generated art is now getting good enough that people can get a "good-enough" version of what they want for free, instead of paying an artist $50 or $100 for a piece of art. I've commissioned art for my D&D character before, and I'll almost certainly do so again - but if I'm playing a one-shot onl…

People have been losing their jobs because of technology ever since the industrial revolution, each one of them enraged about it, and rightfully so. Society doesn't care about people who've put their whole lives into a skill that suddenly became worthless (or much less valuable then it was). The solution is not to ban technology (you can't really ban technology, as it's not under total government control) - the solut…

> the solution is to enable anyone to pursue new skills without fear of homelessness and starvation. I.e. Universal Basic Income.

Sure but good luck getting that to happen. The same level automation has already happened for agriculture and I still have to buy my groceries.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#122

Post by haskellandchill »

zackmorris wrote: post #66
gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

I'll always remember 2022 as the year that creativity died. That sounds a bit negative I guess, but techniques like stable diffusion will be applied to other problem domains, so all other art forms like music and creative writing will be automated within the next 5-10 years. And if computers can do that, they can do anything. Because that's how our brains work. Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns…

> Our neurons are microscopic filters magnifying patterns in the long tail of quantum randomness where source consciousness probably resides

gibberish

> Although science will only have recipes for creating consciousness, it will never be able to explain meaning, because it has nothing to say about it. That's the domain of personal experience, faith, the study of magic, etc.

misguided conjecture

> We're looking at not just the death of creativity, but the death of all human contribution

hilariously misinformed extrapolation

AI is nowhere closer to cracking the meaning problem. Until we have meaningful AI generated art there's no point for this baseless speculation.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#123

Post by Akronymus »

hadlock wrote: post #116
Akronymus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest furry art archives has always banned art without much, if any, actual input from the human who created the artpiece. For example, game screenshots are banned almost universally, picture generated art is as well (something like picrew) 3d models aren't, assuming there is posing and such and so on. It seems a perfectly fine continuation to the existing rules to ban ai generated art.

Also, Art AI can't click on ads, which is probably, ultimately their main concern. If you replace all the monetized users with AI that can't buy things, the economic incentive to keep the website running disappears.

Oh,the website is mainly for hosting art and people looking at it. So, AI generated art wouldnt dirrctly impact ads.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#124

Post by blacksmith_tb »

gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

I suppose the 'photocopier' argument is pretty similar to collage - sure, it's recombining existing things, but presumably they'd all agree Max Ernst wasn't just a machine?

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#125

Post by minimaxir »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #77
gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

> Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument was as follows: Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by…

Textual inversion also takes an entire concept (including context, style, and 3D attributes) and fits it into 768 float32s / 4KB.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#126

Post by henriquecm8 »

firasd wrote: post #35

I think the communities involved here like digital artists, furries etc got a lot of attention hating on NFTs last year, so they are doubling down with the anti-art-generator movement. But I don't think this one will be so successful. Like sure, maybe art community sites could require you to tag prompt-generated art just as a way to label things, but in terms of widespread usage the cat is out of the bag. Whenever I…

Yesterday I saw a guy saying that Outpaint is nothing new, that photoshop was able to do it for years, I pointed it out that what photoshop does is extremely limited, and the results only look okay in small scale, the difference is night and day.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#127

Post by Animats »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #77
gdubs wrote: post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

> Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument was as follows: Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by…

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#128

Post by mistrial9 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #120
mherdeg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-artist whose compensation is, so far, unaffected by ML-generated images, I'm more interested in the effects the technology has on people. Over the past 150 years it became possible to compute cube roots in milliseconds, instead of minutes. Slide rules became obsolete, and the things we learn to do do arithmetic changed. Over the past 20 years, the way we look up arbitrary facts changed. We learned to constru…

I think it will be interesting, but not result in total annihilation of the existing field. As a general counterexample, TV did not kill radio despite it having more dimensions for creativity. Radio changed, but it did not die, and was quite comfortable for many decades after. Coallescing on prompt languages is probably unlikely, if only because part of the thing that defines a language is that a community has rules,…

sign makers were put out of business en masse at a certain point, and there were quite a few, and it is high-skill, high-commitment work. Some kinds of print arts related to magazines for example, were next.

There is a chapter in the Stanford AI Index (2021) that opens with "The rise of AI will inevitable raise questions of how much these technologies will impact business, labor and the economy in general .. "

there are winners and losers here, not just interesting questions. In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment among many skilled "workers" .. can't imagine the 1990s ex-Soviet economies.. I dont think these questions are neutral or innocent.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#130

Post by zimpenfish »

Axauv wrote: post #96
pavel_lishin wrote: post #82

Aside from the debates about "artistic merit" and the ethics of using AI trained on existing artists' work, one of the key things is that this new technology allows anyone to flood a place with images. There are some scifi-themed subreddits that I visit that allow posting art, and at this point it feels like 50% of all submissions are Midjourney/Dall-E generated art. Fine, it looks ok, but there's such a low barrier…

This could be solved on basically all arti communities by simply putting in a post limit per day. Say an artist can only upload 5 images per day or something, why would someone need to upload more than that?

> Say an artist can only upload 5 images per day or something, why would someone need to upload more than that?

There's been more than a few days when I've uploaded more than 5 images a day to flickr/Instagram (according to my backup, I uploaded 27 images to Instagram on 2007-02-04 during a day-long walk.)

Post reply on HN